G.R. No. L-13349 - G.R. No. 123456, Gamao vs. Calamba

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13349)
Standard Advanced

Facts:

Background of the Case

On May 22, 1962, respondents Remigio Bacunal and Generosa Venceslao-Bacunal filed an action before the Court of First Instance of Ormoc City.
The respondents sought the recovery of possession of a five‐hectare portion of Lot No. 10266 (covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4067) and prayed that they be declared the owners thereof, in addition to damages and attorney’s fees.
Petitioners Leonardo Cabudol, Pastor Cabudol, Daniel Cabudol, and Jesus Cabudol answered the complaint denying the allegations, asserting that they possessed and owned in common Lot No. 10103 (covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-66).

The Compromise Agreement

Prior to trial, a compromise agreement was reached between the parties.
Key provisions of the agreement included:

Appointment of a duly licensed surveyor (Porfirio Ayuyao) to conduct the relocation of the two lots (Nos. 10266 and 10103) as covered by their respective titles.
Appointment of a Court Commissioner (Iluminado Dumagsa) to be present during the relocation.
The surveyor was to indicate, on the relocation maps, the portions of the lots that were in the possession of either party or even third persons.
Notification of adjoining owners of the lots about the relocation schedule, thereby allowing them to testify if desired.
Once the surveyor and commissioner submitted their joint report, the court would determine the party that trespassed and order that such party pay exclusively for the surveyor's services amounting to P200.00, or else both parties would share the cost proportionately.

Trial Court Proceedings

On September 21, 1962, the trial court rendered a decision conforming to the compromise agreement.
The decision required, after submission of the relocation maps and joint report, that the party found to have trespassed pay P200.00 exclusively for the surveyor’s services.
Following the relocation and survey:

The report submitted by Surveyor Ayuyao and Commissioner Dumagsa indicated that petitioners were occupying or encroaching upon the portion of Lot No. 10266 belonging to the respondents, amounting to 5.3686 hectares.
Consequently, the trial court approved the report on January 15, 1963, directing petitioners to pay the surveyor the specified amount and warning that failure to do so would result in execution of the order.

Post-Decision Motions and Developments

On February 18, 1963, petitioners filed a motion to reconsider the January 15 order, contending:

The relocation was conducted without proper notice to adjoining owners, thus depriving them of the opportunity to testify.
The commissioner failed to submit his report during a formal hearing, in contravention of the Rules of Court.

The motion to reconsider was denied on February 22, 1963.
Petitioners attempted further relief on February 23, 1963 by:

Filing their notice of appeal and a motion for an extension of time to file a record on appeal and an appeal bond.
These attempts were likewise denied by the lower court on March 1, 1963, as they were filed after the order became final and executory.

Subsequent motions to reconsider the January 15 order were denied in orders dated March 1 and March 6, 1963.

Manifestation of Abandonment

During the pendency of the appeal:

On September 14, 1964 (or during the pendency of the instant petition), petitioners filed a manifestation in Civil Case No. 546-0, stating that having sold their Lot No. 10103 and planning to transfer residence to Mindanao, they were abandoning their claim to the disputed portion of Lot No. 10266.
On September 28, 1964, petitioners communicated by letter to their counsel that they were terminating his services and were no longer interested in further prosecuting the case.

Counsel for the respondents, on September 29, 1964, filed a manifestation in this Court attaching the petitioners’ earlier manifestation and letter.
On October 21, 1964, the petitioners’ counsel formally withdrew his appearance.
Finally, on October 22, 1964, petitioners themselves filed a motion to dismiss the present petition, reconfirming their lack of interest in prosecuting the case further.

Issues:

Validity of the Relocation Process

Whether the relocation of Lots No. 10266 and 10103 complied with the agreed-upon stipulations, including proper notice to adjoining owners.
Whether the failure of the commissioner to submit his report in a formal hearing as mandated by the Rules of Court affected the legitimacy of the survey findings.

Timeliness and Adequacy of Petitioners’ Motions

Whether the petitioners’ motions to reconsider and their subsequent appeal filings were timely and procedurally proper.
The implications of filing motions out of time or after the order on January 15, 1963 became final and executory.

Abandonment of the Claim

Whether petitioners’ subsequent manifestations of abandonment in Civil Case No. 546-0, and their notice to terminate counsel, effectively signify a withdrawal of their interest in the disputed property.
Whether the withdrawal of prosecutorial interest renders the current petition moot and academic.

Proper Court Intervention

Whether it is proper for the Court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction, given the procedural posture and the fact that petitioners had signaled their disinterest in pushing the litigation forward.
Whether the court should compel the lower court to entertain an appeal when the petitioners themselves effectively abandoned the contention.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13349)
Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13349)
Standard Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13349) Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13349) Standard Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13349)
Concise

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13349)
Standard Advanced